Brider/McDoawll marriage

[rosie99]

Were there 2 born in Lambeth?

Yes there are two born Lambeth
The 1851 has
Born 1843 has parents Thomas & Maria - Thomas is a Wood Sawyer bn Portsmouth
Born 1846 has parents Thomas & Mary -Thomas is a labourer bn Portsea, Hampshire

It is the 1843 Thomas that married Jane - father a Sawyer

[heywood]

Thanks Rosie.

[Tabbicat26]

Thank you all for trying to help.  I already have all the information(and loads more) that has been posted so far, the only information I need is a marriage for Thomas and Emma

[heywood]

I was going to post earlier re Emma Mc - daughter of Samuel who married Thomas Lee. I tried to find other information which might support my idea before posting but then had to go out.
I see though that there is an old thread about this family and you have posted on there.
It might be worth pursuing now that there is more information re births on GRO.

I did wonder if that was the reason that there is no marriage to be found.
Regards
Heywood

[Tabbicat26]

Thank you.  I have proof that the Emma you mention was still with her husband Thomas Lee in Hackney in 1894 so she's highly unlikely to be  the same person who was having children with Thomas Brider 1882, 1886, 1889, 1891, 1893 and 1897

[heywood]

Oh dear and I was so hopeful 

It is such a coincidence that the McDowall (variations) births stop in Hackney and resume in the north after 1881 census and that Emma Brider's birthplace is the same as the Emma married to Thomas Lee in 1875. The age is a bit out but so is the one in Hackney in 1891.
The births of the children in 1891 census do not seem to be in the birth indexes except perhaps for Sarah who may be the one from 1881 census.
I wonder if your proof from 1894 is definitely Emma McDowall or just the wife of Thomas Lee?

All good wishes with your research

Heywood

[Tabbicat26]

Births of the children are on the GRO register but under the variant Bryder with a Y.  I think the McDowall "matching bits"  are purely co-incidence.  I also have doubts about the census transcriptions giving my Emma's birthplace as Hackney, one of them also says that my Thomas was in the Navy when the census film clearly says "navvy", which is correct as he worked in various labouring capacities at Vickers in Elswick, Newcastle - that information came from his daughter-in-law Susannah who was full of years but very sharp of mind when she had conversations with one of my Brider cousins!  Thank you for trying to help.

[heywood]

I understand because it is a difficult scenario.

I would add though that mothers' maiden names are not entirely coincidental in the GRO indexes. The two children from 1881 census are entered on those with Emma's surnames and the children from the north are too so it seems most odd that the 1891 census shows more children who do not seem to have any entry on the indexes at all.
It very clearly says London S Hackney - although as you say Thomas' birthplace is Lincoln!

I came across the other thread today and can see that the OP there hasn't made much progress with a definite confirmation of Thomas and Emma in 1891. I wondered if he just found another partner called Emma who brought her own pre 1881 children with her.

I know you are not persuaded but I would not dismiss it just yet if I were you - just perhaps keep it in mind.

good luck
Heywood

[Tabbicat26]

As you say, I'm far from persuaded as I think there's a risk of manipulating the facts to fit the theory.  Probably a case for applying Occam's razor - the simplest solution (i.e.that they met and married in Ireland) is the most likely one!